Dual fulfilment of prophecy

We have noted the “Now and the Not Yet” of biblical prophecy. This speaks of lesser and greater fulfilments of prophecy.

We have also noted that early in Holy Week Jesus prophesied the
destruction of the Temple (which was brought about by the Romans 40
years later in AD70). But he also prophesied the End Times and urged
his disciples to look out for both early (recurring) and later signs of
his Return (see Matthew 24). We then quoted various scholars who agree
with this interpretation.

Jesus’ prophecies here are typical of biblical prophecy:

· Prophecy can have an early and a later fulfillment.

· Prophecy can
“concertina” future events widely separated in time to appear close
together.

There are other examples of the dual reference of biblical prophecy:

1. Joel 2:28-3:2 is seen as a prediction
of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2: “And afterwards, I will pour out my
Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old
men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my
servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those
days.” But the prophecy goes on beyond the Day of Pentecost to
the future day of the Lord: “I will show wonders in the heavens and on
the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned
to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the
Lord will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the
Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord calls ‘In those
days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and
Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley
of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my
inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among
the nations and divided up my land.”

2. Sometimes people, events or statements
in the Old Testament are seen as symbolizing and prefiguring Jesus, and
events in the New Testament. Traditionally the Old Testament symbol or
prefiguring has been called a “type” and the New Testament equivalent
the “antitype”. So Jesus sees Jonah as a “type” of himself and his
death and resurrection: “He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous
generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign
of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth.The men of Nineveh will
stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they
repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than
Jonah is here” (Matt 12:39-42).

3. A similar approach is described in the
IVP NT Commentary series, referring to Jesus on the Mount of Olives
speaking of both AD70 and the still future End of the Age in Luke 21.
It refers to how divine history was read by the Jews, as well as by the
prophets in the 1st century AD.

“The belief was that God’s judgment followed certain patterns. How he
judged in one era resembled how he would judge in another. Because
God’s character was unchanging and because he controlled history, such
patterns could be noted. Thus deliverance in any era was compared to
the exodus. One event mirrored another. Exilic judgments, whether
Assyrian or Babylonian, were described in similar terms. This ‘mirror’
or ‘pattern’ interpretation of history has been called a
typological-prophetic reading of the text, with the ‘type’ reflecting a
basic pattern in God’s activity. This way of reading history sees
events as linked and mirroring one another. Sometimes the events are
described in such a way that we modern readers would not readily notice
that distinct events are being discussed. Sometimes a text offers
clarifying reflection after more events detailing God’s program have
been revealed.

Jesus’ eschatological discourse links together two such events, the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the events of the end signaling
his return to earth. Because the events are patterned after one another
and mirror one another, some of Jesus’ language applies to both.”[i]

However, some scholars are critical of the idea of the dual reference
of biblical prophecy. Some of this has been focused on Isa 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will
conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
This was an immediate historical reference. King Rezin of Aram and King
Pekah of Israel had attacked Jerusalem and the Lord spoke to King Ahaz
of Judah through Isaiah, urging him to seek a sign that he (the Lord)
would protect him. But Ahaz refused ‘to put the Lord to the test.’
Isaiah said this refusal was trying the patience of God and the Lord
would give him a sign. Such a sign would be fulfilled within a year or
two. The word “virgin” could be translated “young woman” and the name
Immanuel could be another name for Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,
whose birth is recorded in Isaiah 8:3, see 8:8.

Matthew understands Isa 7:14 as predicting the virgin birth of Jesus:
“All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the
prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they
will call him Immanuel’ (which means ‘God with us’)” (Matt 1:22-23).

Some scholars say this is not a second fulfilment but it is Matthew
using Isa 7:14 as a parallel, an association of ideas. This would have
been quite an acceptable thing to do in Matthew’s day. The same could
be said of 1 Cor 14:21 “In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but
even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.’” Paul is,
of course, referring to speaking in tongues and he is quoting Isa
28:11-12. But Isaiah is saying God will “speak” to rebellious Israel
through the Assyrians, i.e. through an invasion by Assyria. It does not
seem likely that Isaiah had in mind what the New Testament calls
‘speaking in tongues.’

Andrew Perriman writes about Jesus reference in Matthew 24 back to the
prophet Daniel (for example Matthew 24:30 and Daniel 7:13) and says
this is not a case of two fulfilments but “that Jesus would have
understood perfectly well the original historical frame of reference
[in Daniel’s day] but intentionally re-uses the symbolism to interpret
an analogous state of affairs [in the 1st century AD] …. Jesus,
therefore, does what prophets often do: they retell biblical stories
and arguments in a new context in order to give faithful but troubled
Israel understanding and hope …. He saw the historical relevance of the
analogy and creatively retold Israel’s story, centred on himself, in
light of it. That cannot be understood to mean that Daniel 7-12
intrinsically has two fulfilments. Nor does it mean that we can take
any prophecy willy-nilly and claim that whatever relevance it may have
had under the particular historical conditions of the first three
centuries, it still has relevance for the church today. That cannot be
ruled out, but it must be done with prophetic and scriptural
discrimination.[ii]

Perriman believes that Matthew 24 refers only to the AD30-70 period
which, as I have already said, I believe to be a mistaken view. However
he does allow for biblical prophecies to have “relevance to the church
today” so long as the relevance is worked out “with prophetic and
scriptural discrimination.”

Professor John Walton[iii] makes some interesting comments. He is quite
clear that, strictly from the point of view of language, there is no
strong argument for understanding the Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 as
“virgin.” He goes on to point out that in ancient Israel prophecy, as a
word from God, was regarded as not just predicting a future event but
as having an important effect on the future. This effect would not
necessarily be foreseen by the prophet. It would develop as time
progressed. So Isaiah wouldn’t necessarily have foreseen the virgin
birth and the child who really was “God with us” but he would have been
quite happy with Matthew’s use of his prophecy. Isaiah would have
expected that the fulfilment of his prophecy might have developed

Peter speaks of this – Old Testament prophets expecting a major future
fulfilment but not knowing what it would be. He was referring primarily
to prophecies like Isaiah 53. Peter writes: “Concerning this salvation,
the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched
intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and
circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when
he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would
follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves
but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by
those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from
heaven. Even angels long to look into these things” (1 Peter 1:10-12).

However, it must be borne in mind that the New Testament writers were
inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Old Testament prophecies
as they did. We must be very careful if we do the same because we don’t
have that special inspiration.

A good number of scholars do accept the dual fulfilment of prophecy.
Professor R V G Tasker, speaking of the Virgin Birth, says Matthew “is
led to see in it a fulfilment of the words spoken by God through His
prophet and recorded in Isaiah vii. 14. …. this prophecy was in fact
more far-reaching than the prophet himself was aware.” It was not
limited to the historical fulfilment in the 8th century BC.[iv]
Professor Herman Ridderbos says Isaiah was not speaking of a miraculous
birth but that nevertheless the prophecy obtained its essential
fulfilment in Christ.

Commenting on Ridderbos, Professor G C Berkouwer wrote: “Thus the event
in Mathew 1 (this birth) is not simply a “coming true” of an earlier
prediction but a fulfillment which, on the one hand, is related to the
faith in Ahaz’ day and with the name “Immanuel.”[v]

Speaking of the Book of Revelation, Professor Robert Mounce writes:
“The predictions of John, while expressed in terms reflecting his own
culture, will find their final and complete fulfillment in the last
days of history. Although John saw the Roman Empire as the great beast
that threatened the extinction of the church, there will be in the last
days an eschatological beast who will sustain the same relationship
with the church of the great tribulation. It is this eschatological
beast, portrayed in type by Rome, that the Apocalypse describes. Otto
Piper notes that many modern interpreters overlook the distinction
between the historical fulfillment of prophecy and its eschatological
fulfillment. The pattern of imperceptible transition from type to
antitype was already established by the Olivet Discourse, in which the
fall of Jerusalem becomes in its complete fulfillment the end of the
age.”[vi]

It seems quite acceptable to believe in the dual fulfilment of biblical
prophecy whilst accepting that the Old Testament prophets did not
necessarily have the second (main) fulfilment in mind, even though they
may have been “trying to find out the time and circumstances to which
the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing.” However the New Testament
writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognised the second
fulfilment. The same thing applies to New Testament prophecies. The
writers made predictions which sometimes referred to 1st century events
and did not necessarily have a second major fulfilment in mind.
Similarly Jesus made predictions which his hearers may have applied
only to 1st century events. But it is clear that some of these
predictions do have a second major fulfilment which is still future. We
have to be careful, though, in seeking a correct understanding of these
predictions.